Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 24856 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2009 06:13:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2009 06:13:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 48641 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2009 06:13:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 48617 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2009 06:13:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 48606 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2009 06:13:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:13:29 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:13:21 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LZJCW-0001rf-UF for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:13:00 -0800 Message-ID: <22051194.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:13:00 -0800 (PST) From: hackingbear To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Severe performance hit upgrading to 5.2.0 from 5.1 In-Reply-To: <22016698.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: hackingbear@gmail.com References: <22016698.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, any help on this? 5.2 shouldn't be a few times slower, but I can't find out why. All the other configs are out-of-box defaults. hackingbear wrote: > > Hi, > > I upgraded to 5.2.0 last week and witness my application performance > dropped substantially. I wrote a simple test which does: > > producer: > loop > create a temporary reply queue > send a short object message to a non-persistent, non-durable queue > read from reply queue > delete the reply queue > > consumer: > read the message > send the same object back to the reply queue > > In 5.1, I get to 91 msg/s but in 5.2.0, I only get 17 msg/s > > The configurations are pretty much identical between the two versions: > 5.2: -Xmx512M -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalMode > -Dorg.apache.activemq.UseDedicatedTaskRunner=false > 5.1: -Xmx386m -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalMode > -Dorg.apache.activemq.UseDedicatedTaskRunner=false > > prefetch=1 for both versions. > > (Notes worthy: the test program producer/consumers are using the 5.2 > activemq-all.jar, only the broker server is changed in the tests.) > > I know the implication of the UseDedicatedTaskRunner and prefetch, but > here they are identical for both versions. > > Why is there such a huge performance hit in 5.2? > > Thanks > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Severe-performance-hit-upgrading-to-5.2.0-from-5.1-tp22016698p22051194.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.